Site Mobile Navigation

Bills on Environment Debated at Panel

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

WASHINGTON, May 5 —The issue of whether the states or the Federal Government should be given the paramount role in overseeing environmental protection was debated inconclusively today before a joint meeting of two Senate groups.

The larger problem is whether Congress should alter however slightly, the nation's mnjor environmental protection law in order to end administrative confusion and legal challenges that have delayed job‐promoting public works projects.

At issue are two bills passed by the House last month and now before the Senate that. would modify the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to allow the states, rather than the Fedcovering New York, Connectilarger role in preparing environmental impact statements.

As required by the act, these statements deal with the impact of a works project such as a highway on air and water pollution, the use or the land and the economy of an area.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, covering New York, Connecticut and Vermont, ruled in December that there had been insufficient Federal involvment in the preparation of an impact statement for a section of Route 7 in Vermont.

As a result, legal challenges have been mounted to about 130 highway projects in the three states, which would employ about 130,000 workers. Raymond T. Schuler, New York State Commissioner of Transportation testified that the court decision affects 77 state projects that would cost $1.275‐billion over two years and would employ 78,000 workers.

To sort out the problem, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Public Works Committee heard the principal spokesmen for the various sides.

Senator Lloyd N. Bentsen. Democrat of Texas who acted as chairman, noted in his opening statement that Congress was “deeply concerned about unemployment problems in the construction trades which have now exceeded 15 per cent.”

“But it would be a mistake. in my view, to portray these hearings as a struggle between the environmentalists on the one hand and the highway construction industry on the other,” he added. “The issues involved are far more complicated than that.”

Opposition to Bills

Both Senator Bentsen and Russell W. Peterson, chairman of the Federal Council on Environmental Quality, said that even the court decision had been interpreted in different ways by different governmental agencies, further adding to the conusion.

Speaking for the Ford Administration, Mr. Peterson said one of the bills, H.R. 3130. “should be enacted as the only acceptable resolution of this general problem.” The second bill, H.R. 3787. deals only with the problem in the three states, rather than the national issues.

He insisted that neither bill would undermine that portion of the act dealing with environmental impact statements since both the Federal and state governments would participate in their preparation.

But representatives of three environmental groups testified that the act would be diluted by the two bills because they would allow the statements to be drawn up by state agencies and officials, with Federal guidance.

“The two bills strike the heart of NEPA Idle environmental act).” said Harvey, D. Carter an attorney with the Conservation Society of South ern Vermont which brought the suit that led to the court decision.

Mr. Carter said the Federal Highway Administration had failed to live up to” the terms of the act contending that the two bills would “codify this failure.”

He added that State highway departments were prejudiced in favor of the projects that they directed and were lacking in the “completeness” and “objectivity” that’ the law required of the impact statements, His position was backed by Len Arrow, director of the Highway Action Coalition, and Sarah Chasis an attorne with. the National Resources Defense Council.

Miss Chasis also contended that it was not true that passage of the bills would spur employment because many of the delayed projects “are far back in the planning process.”

But Mr. Schuler countered. that legal objections and lawsuits such as those that filed in the Vermont case were the very reason for much of the dela V.

“We don't want to diminish’ NEPA, but we must seek a legislative clarification.” he said.

Mr. Schuler supported by John Gray, the Vermont Highway Commissioner, said the states were in a better position to prepare the impact statements because they were closer to lecal problems than Federal, ‘agencies.

A version of this archives appears in print on May 6, 1975, on Page 25 of the New York edition with the headline: Bills on Environment Debated at Panel. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe